On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:57:20 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> function f1( a, b, *args )
> >> {
> >> for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
> >> a[i](a, b);
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Where did I see this syntax? I like this one, so let's stick with
> > it. I eliminates the need to assign ... to a variable, and it avoid
> > implicit, hidden variables like 'arguments'.
>
> At least Python supports it, and yes, I like it too.
Ah yes, it's been some time since I programmed in Python...
> >>>>I think people might find identifiers such as 'a-b' confusing (I know
> >>>>it's a common naming convention in Scheme), so I would prefer 'a_b' or 'aB'.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Since the flow language is tightly integrated with the Scheme engine
> >>>underneath and with the Java language implementation, it should be
> >>>possible to invoke Scheme functions, as well as Java methods. Since
> >>>Scheme function names are often named using embedded minus signs, the
> >>>language should provide this feature.
> >>>
> >>Uh, that's a good point, but perhaps our 'layer' of 'built-in' functions
> >>should use 'a_b' or 'aB'. As the flow language is not Scheme, we
> >>probably shouldn't allow direct access to Scheme functions, anyway. If
> >>some users really want to do that, they should use Scheme directly.
> >>
> >
> > Hm, but how about the fact that we do allow access to the Java
> > language underneath?
>
> That's a good point, but there's a slight semantic difference as the
> flow language is translated to Scheme. The Java bindings provide, in a
> way, what browser extensions or LiveConnect provide to ECMAScript. But
> more importantly, the Java integration is probably inevitable, 'a-b'
> identifiers are not :)
OK.
> > OK then, I'll get rid of some of the special characters in
> > variables. I'd still like to have things like ? and ! available
> > though, as they make for more readable names.
>
> Hm, it might be okay for built-in type predicates, but I'm not sure that
> Scheme naming conventions 'rhyme' with the flow language syntax.
>
> (string? a)
> (typeof(a) == "string")
>
> (good?(a))
> (isGood(a))
>
> myProc!(a);
>
> Also, as you know, '!' is commonly used to denote negation, so it might
> cause some confusion.
You have a point. Using infix operators has problems with special
characters. '!=' and the '? :' operator come to mind. They have the
same problem as '-' or '+' inside identifiers. Is hard to understand
whether a!=1 means a! = 1 or a != 1
All right then, out with ? and ! from identifiers.
> >> > Placing spaces around operators
> >>
> >>>also makes for more readable programs ;-)
> >>>
> >>Sure, but some will forget (well, they should read the docs anyway :)
> >>
> >
> > OK, I'll remove them.
>
> It would be fine by me to issue a warning on 'a-b', i.e. to require
> 'a - b', but allowing it as an identifier might be confusing.
Yes, I think is confusing and has the potential of introducing
errors. So I'll remove them from identifiers.
> >> var c = { if (a > b) a; else b; };
> >> var d = [ a : b, b : 1 ];
> >>
> >
> > Yes, using [a: b, c: d] to define a dictionary is better than the
> > curly braces syntax. It's very similar with the array syntax. I think
> > I'll use this one.
>
> OK, that's probably the best choice. (Python does use a[b:c] to 'slice'
> an array, but I think our dictionary instantiation is different enough
> not to cause confusion.)
OK.
> >>>I suspect the implicit return of the last expression in a function or
> >>>a block will be ignored by most people. In most cases, the return
> >>>value will be simply ignored in the code. I don't think people will be
> >>>bothered that instead of void, the f2(2) call above returns 3.
> >>>
> >>Good point (although in theory someone could have 'if (f2(2))', but
> >>that'd be incredibly bad programming).
> >>
> >
> > Not only that, but it would be incorrect syntax ;-0
>
> Incorrect in the flow language, but e.g. Python and JavaScript would
> happily evaluate it to false, no questions asked :) (but this is
> certainly not an issue)
I didn't know that ;-)
> > Thanks for your comments!
>
> Glad to be of help :)
>
> BTW, I know it's not our first priority, but one idea for the name could
> be 'FlowScript'. It doesn't seem to be in wide use and has a nice sense
> of 'flow of script' (although the file suffix might be FS ;).
I searched on Google and it looks there's already a workflow language
with this name. I was actually thinking of jWeave, which expresses the
interweaving of Java with higher level concepts such as
continuations. How about it? I've also reserved the .org and .com
domain names, just in case ;)
Regards,
--
Ovidiu Predescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/7464/ (GNU, Emacs, other stuff)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
